世界已经发生了翻天覆地的变化。没有变的，是中美关系的全球战略重要性。我先谈谈自己是如何看待这个问题的，然后再建议如何以最佳方式继续往前走。

如果信任是这一领域的通货，那么，地缘政治账簿上的主要赤字就是中美之间在战略上互不信任。它源于价值观、意识形态、世界观、政治制度和对全球治理看法的差异。如果这种不信任无法克服，那么世界就会像希腊神话当中的西西弗斯一样被责难，就要将充满争议的中美关系这块巨石无休无止地往山顶上推。

美国认为，用拜登总统的话说，中国是“非常渴望成为世界上最重要最有影响力的国家”。它把中国视为主要战略竞争对手，是对美国国家安全和价值观的威胁。为此，美国加强了在亚太地区的军事能力，并通过Quad和AUKUS等平台巩固了它的联盟和伙伴关系。美国还吸引人们关注新疆和香港涉嫌侵犯人权的问题，以及中国在世界其他地区的所谓胁迫行为。从华盛顿的角度看，尽管是主要受益者，但“中国并没有遵循现有全球秩序规则”，相反，中国正寻求改写这些规则，使之有利于自己。

往轻了说，中国认为这是美国的遏制战略，为的是阻止它崛起成为全球大国。往重了说，中国认为这是一种削弱并瓦解它的长期战略。中国认为，美国“民主对抗专制”的设计意在破坏中国的政治制度和中国共产党的主导地位。类似的这样一场意识形态之争，曾经导致了苏联的解体。

中国领导层认为，过去外国势力剥削中国，是因为中国不够强大。中国领导人经常提醒人民，包括在中国共产党纪念建党100周年的时候，不要忘记中国的百年耻辱。为此，中国正在建设多种防御和进攻能力——在海上，在空中，在太空，以及通过网络战，而终极武器是核武器，“相互保证毁灭”威胁是最好的威慑。

中方的理由是，上述能力是维护中国主权和领土完整所必需的。在美国看来，中国的军事建设带有进攻意图，尤其当它认为北京不愿参与全球核能力建设管控对话的时候。而对中国来说，反倒是美国应当削减其超强的核能力。

在最近双方的视频峰会上，拜登总统呼吁建立“常理性护栏”，习主席则将两国比作两艘巨轮，必须共同前行，不能相撞。对两位领导人的话，当前的实际行动必须有所反映。中美两国必须认识到，维护一个稳定和平的国际环境符合双方利益。在实现地缘政治野心的同时，两国必须在解决悬而未决的双边问题时贯彻“要信任也要查证”共识。

美国国务卿安东尼·布林肯曾表示，美国对中国的态度将是“在该竞争的时候竞争，在可以合作的时候合作，在必须对抗的时候对抗”。基于这一框架，我建议美国和中国“避免因分歧而产生冲突，拥抱良性竞争，最大限度地合作”。

我最大的担心是台湾会不会成为一个开战的理由。我不认为大陆想通过武力实现与台湾的统一。然而，如果看不到和平统一的最终前景，它也可能认为自己别无选择。

北京在无数场合都重申，“台独”是中国的红线。但最大的未知是，迫使大陆采取行动的转折点到底是什么。台湾获得的国际空间越多（北京认为这是美国暗中鼓励的结果），大陆对台湾施加的压力就越大。

考虑到误判的高风险，美国和中国确实应该商讨护栏问题，以避免因台湾问题发生冲突。与其因为误判而冒让事态螺旋式升级和发生军事冲突的风险，不如设立类似美苏那样的21世纪“红色电话”。

不仅要避免冲突，中美还应以良性竞争为基础，通过尽可能的合作来推动两国关系。习主席说，“要提倡公平公正基础上的竞争，开展你追我赶、共同提高的田径赛，而不是搞相互攻击、你死我活的角斗赛”。拜登总统也表示，美国将“要求中国遵守公平竞争、公平实践和公平贸易的国际规则”。表面上看，双方是有共同合作的基础的。

美国和中国必须依照国际法和现有国际规则秩序，解决究竟什么是良性竞争这个问题。有许多紧迫的全球性问题，需要作为世界大国的美国和中国密切合作，这其中包括自由贸易、气候变化、全球疫情防范和宗教极端主义等。

除了两位主角，我们其他人能做什么？2019年以来，我一直在讲“温和的声音”，它代表着相关国家、领导人、机构、媒体、企业、智库和希望避免中美发生灾难性冲突的各界人士，它提倡的是在相互依存、开放、包容、以规则为基础的多边秩序下实现战略理性、和平、增长和繁荣。这种“温和的声音”应敦促美国和中国进行“正和博弈”，而不是零和博弈，当然更不能是负和博弈。世界上所有国家都希望中美之间有一种积极的建设性关系。

一条切实可行的道路，是通过接受分歧来实现和平。东盟就是地理位置、历史、语言和政治制度各不相同的国家走到一起，共享“让东南亚地区和平与繁荣”这一共同愿景的最好例子。

东盟可以是“温和的声音”，真实而独立。我们一贯鼓励中美两国在这一地区的各个领域保持富有成效的参与。两国都是东盟的对话伙伴，我们希望在东盟最高级别会议上继续与中国和美国交流。

香港中美论坛也是有意义的“温和的声音”。我希望，下一次论坛会议时，两个大国都能在处理战略不信任方面取得良好进展。这需要最高层的智慧和治国才能。我相信，美中领导人都拥有这些品质。我祈祷他们能在他们的国家和人民之间建立战略信任。

The world has changed beyond recognition since I last spoke at the inaugural forum in 2019. What remains unchanged is the global strategic importance of the U.S.-China relationship. Let me first speak on how I see the problem, before suggesting how best to move forward.

If trust is the currency of the realm, then the main deficit in the geopolitical ledger is the mutual strategic distrust between the U.S. and China. It stems from a difference in values, ideologies, worldviews, political systems and perspectives on global governance. If this distrust cannot be overcome, the world will be condemned, like Sisyphus, to roll the boulder of a contentious U.S.-China relationship up a hill for eternity.

The U.S. has assessed that China is, in President Biden's words, “deadly earnest about becoming the most significant, consequential nation in the world.” It views China as its main strategic competitor and a threat to American national security and values. The U.S. has therefore bolstered its military capabilities in the Asia-Pacific and strengthened its alliances and partnerships through platforms like the Quad and AUKUS. It has also drawn attention to alleged human rights abuses in Xinjiang and Hong Kong, as well as to what it views as China's coercive behavior in other parts of the world. From Washington's perspective, China is not following the established rules of the global order despite being a chief beneficiary. Instead, China is seeking to rewrite these rules in its favor.

At best, China sees this as a U.S. containment strategy to prevent its rise as a global power. At worst, it sees this as a long-term strategy to weaken China and break it up. It sees the U.S. framing of “democracy versus autocracy” as a move to undermine China's political system and the dominance of the CPC. A similar ideological battle brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The Chinese leadership take the view that foreign powers managed to exploit China in the past because it was not strong enough. Chinese leaders have frequently reminded the people of China's century of humiliation, including on the 100th anniversary of the founding of the CPC. Hence, China is building up multiple defensive and offensive capabilities — at sea, in the air, in space and through cyberwar. The ultimate weapon will be nuclear. The threat of mutually assured destruction is the best deterrence.

China reasons that these capabilities are needed to protect its sovereignty and territorial integrity. To the U.S., China's military build-up harbors offensive intent, particularly as it sees Beijing to be reluctant to engage in global discussions on managing the buildup of nuclear capabilities. To China, the U.S. should instead scale down its immensely superior nuclear capabilities.

At their recent virtual summit, President Biden called for “common-sense guardrails,” while President Xi compared the two countries to two giant ships that must forge ahead together without colliding. Actions on the ground must now reflect the two leaders' words. The U.S. and China must see that it is in their own interest to maintain a stable and peaceful international environment. Both countries need to implement “trust but verify” agreements as they try to resolve outstanding bilateral issues while attaining their geopolitical ambitions.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken has said that the U.S. approach to China will be “competitive when it should be, collaborative when it can be and adversarial when it must be.” Building on this frame, I suggest that the U.S. and China should “avoid conflict over differences, embrace healthy competition and maximize cooperation.”

My biggest concern is whether Taiwan becomes a casus belli. I do not think the mainland wants to invade Taiwan and reunify it through force. However, if it sees no prospect for eventual peaceful reunification, it may believe it has no choice.

Beijing has reiterated on countless occasions that Taiwan independence is its redline. But the big unknown is what is the tipping point that would force the mainland to act. The more international space Taiwan gains, which Beijing sees as the result of tacit encouragement from the U.S., the more the mainland will ratchet up pressure on Taiwan.

Given the high risk of miscalculation, the U.S. and China should indeed negotiate guardrails to avert conflict over Taiwan. It is better to create the 21st century equivalent of the red telephone than to risk spiraling escalation and military conflict through miscalculation.

Beyond merely avoiding conflict, the U.S.-China relationship should be underpinned by healthy competition and driven by cooperation where possible. President Xi has said that “We should advocate fair competition, like competing with each other for excellence in a race, not beating each other in a wrestling arena.” President Biden has also said that the U.S. would “insist that China play by the international rules of fair competition, fair practices and fair trade.” Taken at face value, there is common ground to work together.

The U.S. and China will have to address what exactly healthy competition will look like, in accordance with international law and the existing international rules-based order. There are many pressing global issues that require both the U.S. and China to cooperate closely as global powers. Free trade, climate change, global pandemic preparedness and religious extremism are a few of them.

Besides the two protagonists, what can the rest of us do? I have been speaking about the voice of moderation since 2019. This voice represents the concerned countries, leaders, institutions, media, businesses, think-tanks and people who want to avert a catastrophic clash between the U.S. and China. It advocates strategic rationality, peace, growth and prosperity within an interdependent, open, inclusive, rules-based multilateral order. The moderate voice must urge the U.S. and China to play a “positive-sum game,” not a zero-sum game, and certainly not a negative-sum game. All countries in the world want a positive and constructive relationship with both the U.S. and China.

Peace through acceptance of differences is a practical way forward. ASEAN is a prime example of how countries with very different geographies, histories, languages and political systems can come together to share a common vision of a peaceful and prosperous Southeast Asia.

ASEAN can be a substantive voice of moderation. We have consistently encouraged both the U.S. and China to remain productively engaged in the region across different sectors. Both countries are dialogue partners of ASEAN, and we hope to continue engaging both China and the U.S. at ASEAN meetings at the highest level.

Your forum, too, is a meaningful voice of moderation. I hope that when CUSEF and CCIEE convene the next forum, both major powers will have made good headway in managing their strategic distrust. Doing so will require wisdom and statecraft of the highest order. I believe both presidents Biden and Xi possess these qualities. I pray that they will be able to build up strategic trust between their countries and peoples.